Our Galaxy is a Vortex: Seeing How our Solar System Rotates in multiple levels...

Gxg (G²) · Apr 1, 2016

Proclaim the power of God, whose majesty is over Israel, whose power is in the heavens" (Psalm 68:34 )...How wild it is when seeing the ways that our Galaxy itself is very unique in how it rotates....and a lot of times, I used to look up at the sky wondering if where I was standing was the top of the planet or the bottom (if thinking in terms of North vs. South or thinking you're on the right side of the Globe because of how we saw planets seen in class). But there really is no TOP or BOTTOM in outer space.

Orbit as a concept (when seeing how the orbit of differing celestial bodies differ from one another) can be a bit intriguing when seeing how things revolve relative to the rest of how our solar system operates......the world God made is truly amazing.

The helical model - our Galaxy is a vortex

And for more from the author on the first 2 videos, one can go to Solar System 2.0 & Science Friction | DjSadhu.com

Mind-blown considering the way our galaxy is truly a vortex in many ways - whether that be with the Sun, planets or (as previously discussed with Pluto) dwarf planets.... and thankful for all of the folks who are called by God to work in the world of astronomy or planetary science. It's things like this which REALLY make the world you live such an amazing place to live....and if ever having people say a calling in the sciences is somehow NOT as focused as preaching the Gospel as someone doing teaching or preaching, it is truly ignorant of the things God values. For those working in NASA and other fields truly make our era so much more fun/powerful to be in .....

If anyone would like to participate in the thread, please keep in mind the discussion will be centered on the video itself dealing with the Helic Model and the author of the video in what he has shared on the matter. Any questions or desires for clarity can be seen in first choosing to deal with what the author of the video has said - and to keep from going off topic or any kind of discussions not focused on seeing what's the best model, it is asked that anyone choosing to come into this thread will please be respectful in dealing with the topic before speaking. Those who feel there are different models to consider that may be better, by all means share any articles or reviews you feel are relevant and I'd love to discuss them. Blessings

Loudmouth · Apr 1, 2016

[serious] · Apr 1, 2016

I saw this on facebook a few days ago. It's a cool video, but factually inaccurate.

The trouble is the sun is not dragging the planets along behind it, but rather the sun and all the planets are all moving around the galaxy at the same rate. Another problem is that this video shows the sun moving perpendicularly to the plane of the solar system, but that is not the direction it's moving. The solar plane is tilted about 60 degrees off the galactic plane. This puts each planet in front of the sun for about half it's respective orbit. The direction we are moving in the galaxy isn't fixed either. it will change over the course of our orbit. This won't be noticeable to us though since the orbital period around the galaxy is so much longer than our lives, but in a few dozen million years, we'll be moving around he galaxy sideways along our solar plane.

[serious] · Apr 1, 2016

One other important thing to note is that a vortex and a helix are different things.

Murby · Apr 1, 2016

[serious] said:
factually inaccurate.

The trouble is the sun is not dragging the planets along behind it, but rather the sun and all the planets are all moving around the galaxy at the same rate. Another problem is that this video shows the sun moving perpendicularly to the plane of the solar system, but that is not the direction it's moving. The solar plane is tilted about 60 degrees off the galactic plane. This puts each planet in front of the sun for about half it's respective orbit. The direction we are moving in the galaxy isn't fixed either. it will change over the course of our orbit. This won't be noticeable to us though since the orbital period around the galaxy is so much longer than our lives, but in a few dozen million years, we'll be moving around he galaxy sideways along our solar plane.

[serious] said:
One other important thing to note is that a vortex and a helix are different things.

But its on the internet.. It must be true!!!

Gxg (G²) · Apr 2, 2016

Loudmouth said:

Neither do I - hence, quit the comments you're doing since that's what they are when it's off topic/derail.

Gxg (G²) · Apr 2, 2016

[serious] said:
I saw this on facebook a few days ago. It's a cool video, but factually inaccurate.

The trouble is the sun is not dragging the planets along behind it, but rather the sun and all the planets are all moving around the galaxy at the same rate. Another problem is that this video shows the sun moving perpendicularly to the plane of the solar system, but that is not the direction it's moving. The solar plane is tilted about 60 degrees off the galactic plane. This puts each planet in front of the sun for about half it's respective orbit. The direction we are moving in the galaxy isn't fixed either. it will change over the course of our orbit. This won't be noticeable to us though since the orbital period around the galaxy is so much longer than our lives, but in a few dozen million years, we'll be moving around he galaxy sideways along our solar plane.

To be clear, the appearance of the Sun leading the planets in the gif is just the result of a projection effect – i.e. that things can look different from different angles.

And as another noted on the issue itself:

The orbits of the major planets of the solar system all lie in a narrow plane (like being in economy class! hahaha… sorry), which is tilted at about 60 degrees to the disc of stars that forms the Milky Way. Like this:

Credit : Science Minus Details

We’ll return to the tilt in a moment. But first, if the Sun was really leading the planets, then the thing is completely ludicrous (and this is quite a major part of Plait’s argument). Yet I’m not so sure the viral gif does show the Sun leading the planets. Having read through the author’s website, I can’t find any evidence that he suggests this. In fact, some of other videos on his website clearly show that this isn’t the case:

It seems to me that the appearance of the Sun leading the planets in the gif is just the result of a projection effect – i.e. that things can look different from different angles. On the other hand, Plait read the source material for Sadhu’s model, so maybe there’s something in there that’s more explicit. I’ve glanced at it, but couldn’t find anything stating this precisely. Actually I couldn’t find a whole lot that was even vaguely coherent, but we’ll return to this later. For now, just keep in mind that Sadhu is using an alternative model, even though that may not always be evident.

What the gif definitely does not show is the fact that the orbits of the planets are tilted at about 60 degrees to the direction of the Sun’s motion. Says Plait :

“In the helical model, he shows the planets as orbiting around the Sun perpendicular to the motion of the Sun around the galaxy; “face-on”, if you like.This is wrong. Because the orbits of the planets are tipped by 60°, not 90°, they can sometimes be ahead and sometimes behind the Sun. That right there, and all by itself, shows this helical depiction is incorrect.”

There can be no mistaking that Sadhu’s video shows the orbits with the wrong tilt. But is that so critical? Well actually no, not really. Fact is that if you include the tilt, you still see the planets making a “spiral” pattern (technically it’s a helix) as they move through space. The overall appearance just isn’t that massively different compared to a 90-degree tilt. So what’s the big deal? What does the author claim in this internet sensation that’s so outrageous? Well, not much. That particular video/gif are actually fairly inoffensive, to my mind. The most basic notion that the planets trace helical paths through space is perfectly correct. What honestly surprises me is that this is so incredibly popular on the internet. If you weren’t aware that the Sun orbits the center of the galaxy — which, since the planets orbit it, necessitates that they trace out helical paths — then the education system has seriously failed.

And in researching on the matter, what follows here is the source material for Sadhu’s model.

Gxg (G²) · Apr 2, 2016

[serious] said:
One other important thing to note is that a vortex and a helix are different things.

Dr. Pallathadka Keshava Bhat has some good perspectives I think when it comes to a different way to think of our Solar System...as Sadhu references Dr. Pallathadka Keshava Bhat in his research, stating that it was Bhat that developed the new, Helical model seen in the video from the OP.

Dr. P. Keshava Bhat

And others:

As noted:

There are a couple of reasons why I think this model could just be right. First of all, the heliocentrical model has always been presented (especially by NASA) as a “frisbee” model.

[image taken from here]

Think about this for a minute. In this diagram it seems the Solar System travel to the left. When the Earth is also traveling to the left (for half a year) it must go faster than the Sun. Then in the second half of the year, it travels in a “relative opposite direction” so it must go slower than the Sun. Then, after completing one orbit, it must increase speed to overtake the Sun in half a year. And this would go for all the planets. Just like any point you draw on a frisbee will not have a constant speed, neither will any planet.

Secondly, most planets are visible throughout the entire year. In a “flat” model, every single planet would hide behind the Sun at least once a year. They don’t. Now the heliocentric model isn’t entirely flat, but mostly.

IF the travel direction of the Solar System is “up” or “down” – why haven’t I heard from this in my entire life? Why do I need to run into the Dr.Bhat material to see the “spiral” for the first time? The opposition is divided into two groups: one group thinks the helical model is wrong, the other group says that there’s no or little difference with the current model – very curious.

UPDATE: the FIRST NASA image that shows it like it is
Finally I found ONE image from NASA that shows the angle and travel direction of our solar system:

[serious] · Apr 3, 2016

Ultimately, if neither the text description nor the graphical representations are correct, the video cannot be called correct. So let's look at this:

Gxg (G²) said:
Dr. Pallathadka Keshava Bhat has some good perspectives I think when it comes to a different way to think of our Solar System...as Sadhu references Dr. Pallathadka Keshava Bhat in his research, stating that it was Bhat that developed the new, Helical model seen in the video from the OP.

Dr. P. Keshava Bhat

And others:

The solar system's motion thru space - Cosmoquest

The Helical Model of Solar System and Alexander Sitchen

way too many youtube videos. Either give a time mark for something specific you think is relevant, or summarize in your own words.

As noted:

Displays the direction of motion of the solar system as perpendicular to the plane of the solar system, which, as we discussed, is wrong.

There are a couple of reasons why I think this model could just be right. First of all, the heliocentrical model has always been presented (especially by NASA) as a “frisbee” model.

[image taken from here]

This is showing the interstellar wind, not the direction of travel within the milky way. I'm not sure what relation this is supposed to have to anything.

Think about this for a minute. In this diagram it seems the Solar System travel to the left. When the Earth is also traveling to the left (for half a year) it must go faster than the Sun. Then in the second half of the year, it travels in a “relative opposite direction” so it must go slower than the Sun. Then, after completing one orbit, it must increase speed to overtake the Sun in half a year. And this would go for all the planets. Just like any point you draw on a frisbee will not have a constant speed, neither will any planet.

Right, what's the issue with that?

Secondly, most planets are visible throughout the entire year. In a “flat” model, every single planet would hide behind the Sun at least once a year. They don’t. Now the heliocentric model isn’t entirely flat, but mostly.

What planet isn't on the far side of the sun at some point? The sun takes up ~3 degrees in the sky. if the plane was perfectly flat, that means every planet would cross behind the sun for about 3 days a year, making it NOT behind the sun for the vast majority of it's time.

IF the travel direction of the Solar System is “up” or “down” – why haven’t I heard from this in my entire life? Why do I need to run into the Dr.Bhat material to see the “spiral” for the first time? The opposition is divided into two groups: one group thinks the helical model is wrong, the other group says that there’s no or little difference with the current model – very curious.

The two arguemnts against it are against two parts:
1. The idea that the orbital motion of the planets is somehow a function of the motion of the solar system around the galaxy is flat out wrong, as is the idea that the direction of travel through the galaxy would be maintained as roughly towards solar north.

2. The softer approach of just modeling the motion of the planets in terms of an inertial reference frame that happens to be roughly perpendicular to the solar plane and roughly tangential to our galactic orbital path isn't really different than current models, it's just using a different reference frame for no particular reason. furthermore, since the tangent line will change through the galactic year, but the line orthogonal to the plane of the solar system won't, the deviation between the two will change substantially throughout our orbit around the milky way.

UPDATE: the FIRST NASA image that shows it like it is
Finally I found ONE image from NASA that shows the angle and travel direction of our solar system:

the background image might come from nasa, the overlay claiming a 90 degree tilt I assure you does not. It's a 60 degree tilt, not a 90 degree tilt, and those angles would be measured from the line orthogonal to the plane of the galaxy, not a random tangent line.

Gxg (G²) · Apr 4, 2016

[serious] said:
Ultimately, if neither the text description nor the graphical representations are correct, the video cannot be called correct. So let's look at this:

At the end of the day, as much of science lies in what is being described more so than the title since the title being off doesn't make the concept invalid - and thus, one needs to be accurate with the content.

way too many youtube videos. Either give a time mark for something specific you think is relevant, or summarize in your own words.

Deflection, as 2 minutes of someone explaining is "Way too many" and one can either address what was said to show they actually know what was stated or they don't want to deal with the argument.

Displays the direction of motion of the solar system as perpendicular to the plane of the solar system, which, as we discussed, is wrong.

It didn't display it as perpendicular since it was never a full-to-scale account, which was already mentioned. Thus, again, there is an avoidance and we cannot avoid that. As said before on the motion itself -as even others disagreeing with the title understand the concept.

And as another noted on the issue itself:

The orbits of the major planets of the solar system all lie in a narrow plane (like being in economy class! hahaha… sorry), which is tilted at about 60 degrees to the disc of stars that forms the Milky Way. Like this:

Credit : Science Minus Details

We’ll return to the tilt in a moment. But first, if the Sun was really leading the planets, then the thing is completely ludicrous (and this is quite a major part of Plait’s argument). Yet I’m not so sure the viral gif does show the Sun leading the planets. Having read through the author’s website, I can’t find any evidence that he suggests this. In fact, some of other videos on his website clearly show that this isn’t the case:

It seems to me that the appearance of the Sun leading the planets in the gif is just the result of a projection effect – i.e. that things can look different from different angles. On the other hand, Plait read the source material for Sadhu’s model, so maybe there’s something in there that’s more explicit. I’ve glanced at it, but couldn’t find anything stating this precisely. Actually I couldn’t find a whole lot that was even vaguely coherent, but we’ll return to this later. For now, just keep in mind that Sadhu is using an alternative model, even though that may not always be evident.

What the gif definitely does not show is the fact that the orbits of the planets are tilted at about 60 degrees to the direction of the Sun’s motion. Says Plait :

“In the helical model, he shows the planets as orbiting around the Sun perpendicular to the motion of the Sun around the galaxy; “face-on”, if you like.This is wrong. Because the orbits of the planets are tipped by 60°, not 90°, they can sometimes be ahead and sometimes behind the Sun. That right there, and all by itself, shows this helical depiction is incorrect.”

There can be no mistaking that Sadhu’s video shows the orbits with the wrong tilt. But is that so critical? Well actually no, not really. Fact is that if you include the tilt, you still see the planets making a “spiral” pattern (technically it’s a helix) as they move through space. The overall appearance just isn’t that massively different compared to a 90-degree tilt. So what’s the big deal? What does the author claim in this internet sensation that’s so outrageous? Well, not much. That particular video/gif are actually fairly inoffensive, to my mind. The most basic notion that the planets trace helical paths through space is perfectly correct. What honestly surprises me is that this is so incredibly popular on the internet. If you weren’t aware that the Sun orbits the center of the galaxy — which, since the planets orbit it, necessitates that they trace out helical paths — then the education system has seriously failed.

And in researching on the matter, what follows here is the source material for Sadhu’s model.

[serious] said:
This is showing the interstellar wind, not the direction of travel within the milky way. I'm not sure what relation this is supposed to have to anything.

Interstellar Wind Changed Direction Over 40 Years | NASA

Vestiges of the interstellar wind flowing into what's called the heliosphere -- the vast bubble filled by the sun's own constant flow of particles, the solar wind – is one of the ways scientists can observe what lies just outside of our own home, in the galactic cloud through which the solar system travels. The heliosphere is situated near the inside edge of an interstellar cloud and the two move past each other at a velocity of 50,000 miles per hour. This motion creates a wind of neutral interstellar atoms blowing past Earth, of which helium is the easiest to measure.

"Because the sun is moving though this cloud, interstellar atoms penetrate into the solar system," said Priscilla Frisch, an astrophysicist at the University of Chicago, Ill. and the lead author on the paper. "The charged particles in the interstellar wind don't do a good job of reaching the inner solar system, but many of the atoms in the wind are neutral. These can penetrate close to Earth and can be measured."

Frisch became interested in this subject when results in January 2012 from NASA's Interstellar Boundary Explorer, or IBEX, showed that the interstellar wind was entering the heliosphere from a slightly different direction than had been observed by NASA's Ulysses mission in the 1990s. Frisch and her colleagues set out to gather as much evidence from as many sources as they could to determine whether the newer instruments simply provided more accurate results, or whether the wind direction itself changed over the years.

g

Right, what's the issue with that?What planet isn't on the far side of the sun at some point? The sun takes up ~3 degrees in the sky. if the plane was perfectly flat, that means every planet would cross behind the sun for about 3 days a year, making it NOT behind the sun for the vast majority of it's time.

Of course, the argument wasn't about whether the planets were not behind the sun at any point ...the solar system isn't 'flat' in the plane of the disc and there is nothing flat about the solar system if you consider it from the thermodynamic center that it is formed around. . Even Galilean-Newtonian relativity(which is still valid under Einsteinian relativity) explains how the vortex model in the OP is experimentally indistinguishable from a planar (flat) model, but when it comes to failing to see the Vortex model as connected with dynamics of a flat one, that's where things become complicated. But the actual model of the solar system is one of mutual wobbling where the planets and extrasolar bodies pull very slightly on the sun as they all orbit on their elliptical paths (with one of the each ellipses' two foci being centred on the sun).

The two arguemnts against it are against two parts:
1. The idea that the orbital motion of the planets is somehow a function of the motion of the solar system around the galaxy is flat out wrong, as is the idea that the direction of travel through the galaxy would be maintained as roughly towards solar north.

Stating such doesn't show any evidence of error ..

2. The softer approach of just modeling the motion of the planets in terms of an inertial reference frame that happens to be roughly perpendicular to the solar plane and roughly tangential to our galactic orbital path isn't really different than current models, it's just using a different reference frame for no particular reason. furthermore, since the tangent line will change through the galactic year, but the line orthogonal to the plane of the solar system won't, the deviation between the two will change substantially throughout our orbit around the milky way.

That doesn't match up as it concerns arguing what the helic model is actually about..

the background image might come from nasa, the overlay claiming a 90 degree tilt I assure you does not. It's a 60 degree tilt, not a 90 degree tilt, and those angles would be measured from the line orthogonal to the plane of the galaxy, not a random tangent line.

Saying "I assure you" doesn't really show it separate from 90-degree tilt and again, if you have any evidence otherwise, of course it can be discussed.

Ophiolite · Apr 4, 2016

Could you please summarise, preferably without more or repeated videos, what your central point is? I, for one, am completely lost as to what you are trying to say. I am not sure if it is just drawing attention to some interesting, but often overlooked points, or if you are seeking to challenge some fundamental, current ideas. Please help remove my confusion.

Murby · Apr 4, 2016

Ophiolite said:
Could you please summarise, preferably without more or repeated videos, what your central point is? I, for one, am completely lost as to what you are trying to say. I am not sure if it is just drawing attention to some interesting, but often overlooked points, or if you are seeking to challenge some fundamental, current ideas. Please help remove my confusion.

Could it be that adding multi-colored historical trailing path lines to a motion video looks cool but is relatively meaningless?

People who don't know anything about cosmology or astrophysics look at these animations and get all giddy.. I guess its probably a good thing if it garners their interest and they do more reading.. but its just a gimmick.

[serious] · Apr 4, 2016

Gxg (G²) said:
At the end of the day, as much of science lies in what is being described more so than the title since the title being off doesn't make the concept invalid - and thus, one needs to be accurate with the content.

which, as discussed, is also inaccurate in that the direction of motion is not orthagonal to the plane of the solar system, nor would the plane of the solar system change to maintain such an orietation through it's orbit even if the two did happen to match up for a time. (which again, do to the 60 degree tilt, they don't)

Deflection, as 2 minutes of someone explaining is "Way too many" and one can either address what was said to show they actually know what was stated or they don't want to deal with the argument.

You've posted 8 videos totaling about 2 HOURS.

It didn't display it as perpendicular since it was never a full-to-scale account, which was already mentioned. Thus, again, there is an avoidance and we cannot avoid that. As said before on the motion itself -as even others disagreeing with the title understand the concept.

From the first video you posted, at about 55 seconds in, you can clearly see all planets trailing the sun even though with the edge on perspective, either the foreground or background planets should unambiguously be leading the sun.

And as another noted on the issue itself:

The orbits of the major planets of the solar system all lie in a narrow plane (like being in economy class! hahaha… sorry), which is tilted at about 60 degrees to the disc of stars that forms the Milky Way. Like this:

Credit : Science Minus Details

Right, 60 degrees. 60 degrees is not 90 degrees. It isn't even close to 90 degrees.

We’ll return to the tilt in a moment. But first, if the Sun was really leading the planets, then the thing is completely ludicrous (and this is quite a major part of Plait’s argument). Yet I’m not so sure the viral gif does show the Sun leading the planets. Having read through the author’s website, I can’t find any evidence that he suggests this. In fact, some of other videos on his website clearly show that this isn’t the case:

and at several places in the first video, like at about 55 seconds as mentioned above, that is exactly what we see.

It seems to me that the appearance of the Sun leading the planets in the gif is just the result of a projection effect – i.e. that things can look different from different angles. On the other hand, Plait read the source material for Sadhu’s model, so maybe there’s something in there that’s more explicit. I’ve glanced at it, but couldn’t find anything stating this precisely. Actually I couldn’t find a whole lot that was even vaguely coherent, but we’ll return to this later. For now, just keep in mind that Sadhu is using an alternative model, even though that may not always be evident.

What the gif definitely does not show is the fact that the orbits of the planets are tilted at about 60 degrees to the direction of the Sun’s motion. Says Plait :

“In the helical model, he shows the planets as orbiting around the Sun perpendicular to the motion of the Sun around the galaxy; “face-on”, if you like.This is wrong. Because the orbits of the planets are tipped by 60°, not 90°, they can sometimes be ahead and sometimes behind the Sun. That right there, and all by itself, shows this helical depiction is incorrect.”
There can be no mistaking that Sadhu’s video shows the orbits with the wrong tilt. But is that so critical? Well actually no, not really. Fact is that if you include the tilt, you still see the planets making a “spiral” pattern (technically it’s a helix) as they move through space. The overall appearance just isn’t that massively different compared to a 90-degree tilt. So what’s the big deal? What does the author claim in this internet sensation that’s so outrageous? Well, not much. That particular video/gif are actually fairly inoffensive, to my mind. The most basic notion that the planets trace helical paths through space is perfectly correct. What honestly surprises me is that this is so incredibly popular on the internet. If you weren’t aware that the Sun orbits the center of the galaxy — which, since the planets orbit it, necessitates that they trace out helical paths — then the education system has seriously failed.

Two things:
1. the difference between the displayed 90 degrees and the actual 60 degrees is 30 degrees variation from reality. If you think that a 30 degree difference is negligible, i'm hard pressed to imagine what would be significant. For comparison, the leaning tower of pisa is only ~5 degrees off. Saying the direction of galactic orbit is orthogonal to the plane of the solar system right now is 6 times more wrong than saying the leaning tower of pisa is straight.

And in researching on the matter, what follows here is the source material for Sadhu’s model.

Interstellar Wind Changed Direction Over 40 Years | NASA

Vestiges of the interstellar wind flowing into what's called the heliosphere -- the vast bubble filled by the sun's own constant flow of particles, the solar wind – is one of the ways scientists can observe what lies just outside of our own home, in the galactic cloud through which the solar system travels. The heliosphere is situated near the inside edge of an interstellar cloud and the two move past each other at a velocity of 50,000 miles per hour. This motion creates a wind of neutral interstellar atoms blowing past Earth, of which helium is the easiest to measure.

"Because the sun is moving though this cloud, interstellar atoms penetrate into the solar system," said Priscilla Frisch, an astrophysicist at the University of Chicago, Ill. and the lead author on the paper. "The charged particles in the interstellar wind don't do a good job of reaching the inner solar system, but many of the atoms in the wind are neutral. These can penetrate close to Earth and can be measured."

Frisch became interested in this subject when results in January 2012 from NASA's Interstellar Boundary Explorer, or IBEX, showed that the interstellar wind was entering the heliosphere from a slightly different direction than had been observed by NASA's Ulysses mission in the 1990s. Frisch and her colleagues set out to gather as much evidence from as many sources as they could to determine whether the newer instruments simply provided more accurate results, or whether the wind direction itself changed over the years.

I asked before and you didn't answer, so let me try again. This is a third thing you are introducing. What does the direction of the solar wind have to do with the orbital plane of the solar system and the current orbital tangent line.

g
Of course, the argument wasn't about whether the planets were not behind the sun at any point ...the solar system isn't 'flat' in the plane of the disc and there is nothing flat about the solar system if you consider it from the thermodynamic center that it is formed around. . Even Galilean-Newtonian relativity(which is still valid under Einsteinian relativity) explains how the vortex model in the OP is experimentally indistinguishable from a planar (flat) model, but when it comes to failing to see the Vortex model as connected with dynamics of a flat one, that's where things become complicated. But the actual model of the solar system is one of mutual wobbling where the planets and extrasolar bodies pull very slightly on the sun as they all orbit on their elliptical paths (with one of the each ellipses' two foci being centred on the sun).

Stating such doesn't show any evidence of error ..
That doesn't match up as it concerns arguing what the helic model is actually about..
Saying "I assure you" doesn't really show it separate from 90-degree tilt and again, if you have any evidence otherwise, of course it can be discussed.

Let's try by way of analogy. Even if the solar system was at a 90 degree tilt, and the current direction of motion was orthogonal to the solar plane, what happens as the galactic orbit progresses?

Let's use Uranus as an example. Uranus is tilted 98 degrees from the solar plane, so at some point in it's orbit, it's moving roughly towards it's north pole. But, at the opposite side of it's orbit, it's moving towards it's south pole. at other points, it's moving along it's plane of rotation:

Likewise, at two points in the solar system's orbit around the galaxy, it will be moving along it's plane of rotation.

Gxg (G²) · Apr 5, 2016

Murby said:
Could it be that adding multi-colored historical trailing path lines to a motion video looks cool but is relatively meaningless?

People who don't know anything about cosmology or astrophysics look at these animations and get all giddy.. I guess its probably a good thing if it garners their interest and they do more reading.. but its just a gimmick.

None of this deals with the thread - and if in the discussion, as a point of respect, one needs to contribute TO the discussion in speaking on the issue. Talking on appeals to emotion isn't the same as either disagreeing or agreeing with a concept, as you haven't shown in any of the comments to know anything on astrophysics or cosmology and trying to do personal discussion on people (Against the CF rules) rather than discussion on the issues doesn't help.

Gxg (G²) · Apr 5, 2016

Ophiolite said:
Could you please summarise, preferably without more or repeated videos, what your central point is?

Central point was already noted in the OP - I am not going to repeat more times if it was not addressed the first time since the focus was on the helic model of the universe and it giving a different perspective and discussing the validity of that model - or disagreeing with it and sharing other models....AND seeing what best fits while appreciating the nature of the universe.

I, for one, am completely lost as to what you are trying to say. I am not sure if it is just drawing attention to some interesting, but often overlooked points, or if you are seeking to challenge some fundamental, current ideas. Please help remove my confusion.

The former was the focus in what you were saying..

Gxg (G²) · Apr 5, 2016

[serious] said:
which, as discussed, is also inaccurate in that the direction of motion is not orthagonal to the plane of the solar system, nor would the plane of the solar system change to maintain such an orietation through it's orbit even if the two did happen to match up for a time. (which again, do to the 60 degree tilt, they don't).

Again, the focus was on academic backing on the issue and that's why it was said there's no real verification saying that the direction of motion is not orthagonal.

You've posted 8 videos totaling about 2 HOURS.

Two things: (1) The only video over an hour long was a documentary on the issue, whereas the other two in the OP (where the documentary was) happened to be 3 minutes and 9 minutes. You did not deal with those since I responded to you with the ones that were 4 minutes and below. There was nothing near 2 hours and verification before sharing is good for next time. (2) Avoiding something 2 minutes or shorter does not change where one can deal with what others have shared on the issue.

Where I responded to you in Saturday at 8:51 AM with the ones 4 minutes and shorter was when I noted very specifically that Dr. Pallathadka Keshava Bhat has some good perspectives I think when it comes to a different way to think of our Solar System...as Sadhu references Dr. Pallathadka Keshava Bhat in his research, stating that it was Bhat that developed the new, Helical model seen in the video from the OP.

Dr. P. Keshava Bhat

From the first video you posted, at about 55 seconds in, you can clearly see all planets trailing the sun even though with the edge on perspective, either the foreground or background planets should unambiguously be leading the sun.

And as said before and as others noted on the video itself, it is not a fully to scale video when it was illustrating a larger point and that was explained.

Right, 60 degrees. 60 degrees is not 90 degrees. It isn't even close to 90 degrees. and at several places in the first video, like at about 55 seconds as mentioned above, that is exactly what we see.

K. As said before, all this model shows, is that the satellites are moving around the sun, with their orbits being disturbed by the gravitational pull of another body, constantly having it go into a loop...and our current model would support that.

As the author of the video noted directly in Solar System 2.0 & Science Friction | DjSadhu.com
:

- The angle with the Galaxy is 60 degrees! At 2:55 in the video I show how this could be the result of the upward angle of the Sun’s path.

- The sun’s path around the Galaxy itself is not helical! That may be. It’s surely not a straight line, we most certainly travel above and below the galactic plane, and I would not be surprised if there were more components to this pattern. Some say it is, and connect this to electromagnetism. But it is certainly not ‘mainstream’ to think this way.

- Our solar system does not have a tail! Well, according to NASA, space.com and DiscoverMagazine, it kind of does.

- It’s only a change in frame of reference! In a way, yes. But can it be “all wrong” and at the same timeonly a change of perspective? The confusing part is that some claim the helical model is “nothing new”, and other claim it’s “all wrong”. Go figure.

Our Solar System is a Vortex showed the helical patterns of the planets over time and connected it with other helical patterns found elsewhere.

- The planets are in the wrong order! Yes, I totally screwed up two orbits right before rendering the video. Out of millions of viewers maybe 50 noticed, but they’re right. But, this should not make you not see the point.

- It’s a helix, not a vortex! Maybe, but you get the point, right? Also this should not make you not see the point.

- The sun is not like a comet! Well, it kind of is, actually. Even NASA used the term “like a comet“.

- The heliocentric model is not “wrong”! I agree that to a certain degree it is a matter of “frame of reference”, but I am still of the opinion that gives a “wrong” impression, or “incomplete” for that matter. I’m willing to take it down a notch and say there’s more to reality than the heliocentric dinner-plate diagrams. Fair enough?

- The sun does not lead the planets! In this case, you comment on the wrong video. It’s the other video that demonstrates the cone shaped model. After reading the Plait article a lot of folks rushed to comment what they just read (about 24 times “all wrong”), not even noticing that in this video the planets are nicely lined up.

- The angle with the Galaxy is 60 degrees, not 90! There is no galaxy in this video, so what angle? Maybe the angle relative to the travel direction, but more on that later. Again, reading an article, rushing, blabla, and not even looking closely.

...
Out of all these wacky ideas in the first two videos there’s only one that’s most important to me. No, it’s not whether the solar system’s path is a wobble or a helix. No, it’s not whether the sun ‘leads’ the planets or not. No, it’s not the ‘pictures of leaves’. As this guy Ché Pasa understood right away, it’s the impressionthat the standard diagram gives.

It is how we see the solar system in our mind’s eye.

For me, the difference between a stationary looking dinner plate model and this dynamic, spiraling model was too huge to ignore. If you ask anyone what they see when they think of the solar system, they will probably describe something like this:

Obviously, I think there’s much more to it than that. Better yet, I think the helical model is quite provable. So, I decided to make another video demonstrating this helical pattern, but this time without the ‘wacky claims’. Just to get the point across: we’re moving, folks! I decided to dial it down a notch, leave out all the debatable details, no furious claims, no stepping on toes, no ‘pictures of leaves’, just the helical model. And make it art.

Here is Solar System 2.0 – a ‘new’ way of looking at our solar system. Sure, the knowledge that we’re moving may have been out there somewhere… but not the image.

G..

C’mon, now don’t tell me this was exactly how you always imagined it was.

Did you notice that from 2:05 you can actually see BOTH models? I included this shot just to show how dramatic this ‘change of perspective’ can be. Here’s the heliocentric model put into a helical frame of reference:

Although this is kind of “my own interpretation” of the 60 degree angle (no, not again!) it could work. But even if you disagree, this should not make you not see the point.

Also, did you notice there were no ‘wacky claims’ and no ‘pictures of leaves’? Don’t get me wrong here, I still believe it’s all connected, still read David Icke, still believe other woowoo stuff – it’s just not in this video. So what I would like is to see this video to be judged by its contents, and not to be debunked because the author ‘has David Icke on his site’.

“Peer review #01″

I recently had an email conversation with Rhys Taylor, an astrophysicist who also wrote an article about the first video. He’s seems like quite a nice guy with a great sense of humor. And he actually managed to see past the wacky stuff and notice something of a point. He also made his own version, and pointed out that there were similarities:

He explained to me how it all had worked from ‘their’ perspective, and why everyone reacted the way they did.

“I don’t think it’s fair to say that discrediting the other stuff on your website was not relevant. You made quite an explicit link between the motion of the planets and DNA and other organic structures. In effect, you claimed that your alternative source model provides evidence for a pseudo-scientific idea about the Fibonacci sequence. That was never going to go down well“.
But he also wrote: “I did, of course, get extremely annoyed by the promotion of this nonsensical alternative [cone shaped] model, but I wanted to make it absolutely clear that this helical-path business is perfectly correct.”

Sure, and I explained to him how it all had worked from my perspective, and why I made this new video. He blogged about this conversation here.

Here are some selective quotes from our conversation:

Rhys: “First, you presented the idea of helical paths as though it were some revolutionary new model. You could have very easily checked with more or less any astronomer who would have told you that we already know this is the case. True, a shiny animation did not exist to show it, but that, as I said, that doesn’t mean it wasn’t known. That doesn’t mean the video wasn’t worthwhile either, only that it should have been expressed differently. […] I do think Plait was right to call you out – even if he missed a pretty big point that the motion of the Solar System is rarely illustrated. Most of the problems with the original could, and should, have been easily prevented. It’s still a very nice rendering of the motion of the Solar System, but in context it was saying, “I’m an unqualified DJ who’s overturned all of astronomy“.”

Me: “The point is how people ‘see’ the solar system. Although the helical paths may have been known to astronomers and astrophysicists (and part of the public), what people ‘see’ when they think about the solar system is in my opinion incomplete. I doubt even astronomers see the solar system like the dynamic helical system as shown in my video, even though they may have all the facts that support it. I’m really hoping this “Solar System 2.0″ concept is getting the point across without shooting the idea in the foot again. […] Since I personally experienced that “aha moment” when I first found out the diagrams I had been watching all my life told only half the story, I’m willing to be that “nutter” as long as this becomes common knowledge.”

Me: “And how come, even though the standard model is ‘correct’ and ‘complete’… you had to come up with a completely new animation to show the old model is okay? Because there was no such video… and that’s what I find annoying. “Science” quickly jumps onto the “it’s all wrong” bandwagon… and then you have to go and tinker to personally make the first “correct” version (oh the angle is a bit different) The complete model should have been out there all along! Noo, let’s debunk DjSadhu, and then make the correct version - for the first time!”

Rhys: “Well, as I wrote in the article : ” What honestly surprises me is that this is so incredibly popular on the internet. If you weren’t aware that the Sun orbits the center of the galaxy – which, since the planets orbit it, necessitates that they trace out helical paths – then the education system has seriously failed. I have been accused of sounding jealous on this point, but unfortunately for me my statement is absolutely true. Honestly, it was so obvious to me that the planets trace out helical paths that I’m still amazed people find this such a revelation. Any object moving in a circular path around a moving center MUST trace out a helix. I find this so obvious I really don’t get why it needs to be stated, let alone visualised. But apparently I’m wrong, and it does. That’s why people like me and Plait are going to get pretty riled if you (intentionally or otherwise) claim that there’s something wrong with the heliocentric model – there isn’t, it’s purely a choice of reference frame.[…] The fact that the Sun and the Solar System orbit the galactic center ought to be considered as ordinary as the Earth going round the Sun. Your latest video has my full support. You’re clearly correct that large numbers of people aren’t aware that the Solar System moves through space – or if they are, they haven’t realised exactly what that means. Your video is a great way of demonstrating that.” (emphasis added)

Full article here.

Two things:
1. the difference between the displayed 90 degrees and the actual 60 degrees is 30 degrees variation from reality. If you think that a 30 degree difference is negligible, i'm hard pressed to imagine what would be significant. For comparison, the leaning tower of pisa is only ~5 degrees off. Saying the direction of galactic orbit is orthogonal to the plane of the solar system right now is 6 times more wrong than saying the leaning tower of pisa is straight.

This, of course, is valid if someone says a model is FULLY to scale - but that was not the case and it was never meant to represent all facets of reality as the author of the video noted.

I asked before and you didn't answer, so let me try again ...What does the direction of the solar wind have to do with the orbital plane of the solar system and the current orbital tangent line.

Sorry - but it was already answered. You avoided it - and we're not going to go though that again until it's dealt with the first time it is mentioned, as I said before. Show where solar wind does not deal with direction and cite if you'd like - where was it ever the case that solar wind was not tied to the orbital plane of the solar system?

. This is a third thing you are introducing.

Actually, as you avoided it, it was already brought up earlier...Saturday at 8:43 AM

Let's try by way of analogy. Even if the solar system was at a 90 degree tilt, and the current direction of motion was orthogonal to the solar plane, what happens as the galactic orbit progresses?

Let's use Uranus as an example. Uranus is tilted 98 degrees from the solar plane, so at some point in it's orbit, it's moving roughly towards it's north pole. But, at the opposite side of it's orbit, it's moving towards it's south pole. at other points, it's moving along it's plane of rotation:

I can more than understand that. Nonetheless, Do you understand, again, what the Helic model advocates? The author of the video aactually speaks on this...

For more information, I'd highly suggest investigating what Rhys Taylor, an astrophysicist, noted on the issue in And Yet It Moves, Quite A Lot Like That

Ophiolite · Apr 5, 2016

Gxg (G²) said:
Central point was already noted in the OP - I am not going to repeat more times if it was not addressed the first time since the focus was on the helic model of the universe and it giving a different perspective and discussing the validity of that model - or disagreeing with it and sharing other models....AND seeing what best fits while appreciating the nature of the universe.
The former was the focus in what you were saying..

I'm sorry, that makes very little sense to me. I appreciate the difficulties of working in a foreign language - it is a challenge I have rarely met. I am not asking you to repeat the point, I am asking you to restate the point in different words.

I presume you are posting here to interest readers in your thought. I doubt I am the only reader who has difficulty understanding what you are aiming at. It would be in your interests as well as that of readers for you to have another go at presenting your case.

From rereading some of the thread, in particular your post #16, it seems you feel the picture of our "true" motion through the galaxy has been insufficiently recognised. If that is your central point then I am unconvinced. The regular planar image of the solar system is wholly appropriate when we are thinking of the solar system and its constituents. There is nothing relating to the "true" motion that impacts upon the behaviour of planets, satellites, etc.

If we wish to explore the influence of the position of the solar system within the galaxy, as it oscillates above and below the galactic plane it is sufficient to consider the system as a point. In short, the helical movement you describe, while real, is largely irrelevant.

[serious] · Apr 5, 2016

Gxg (G²) said:
Sorry - but it was already answered. You avoided it - and we're not going to go though that again until it's dealt with the first time it is mentioned, as I said before. Show where solar wind does not deal with direction and cite if you'd like - where was it ever the case that solar wind was not tied to the orbital plane of the solar system?

Actually, as you avoided it, it was already brought up earlier...Saturday at 8:43 AM

You didn't address it, you copy and pasted an article about some variations in the direction of the interstellar wind. I assume you were thinking the interstellar wind was a result of our motion through a stationary cloud, which it isn't. It's coming from roughly the direction of scorpius, roughly perpendicular to our direction of travel in the galaxy.

I can more than understand that. Nonetheless, Do you understand, again, what the Helic model advocates? The author of the video aactually speaks on this...

For more information, I'd highly suggest investigating what Rhys Taylor, an astrophysicist, noted on the issue in And Yet It Moves, Quite A Lot Like That

ok, if you understand that, you should understand also that in a few dozen million years the solar system will be moving through the galaxy edge on.

Gxg (G²) · Apr 5, 2016

Ophiolite said:
I'm sorry, that makes very little sense to me.

I'm sorry - but that comes off a bit obtuse, as there's nothing difficult to understand when someone says directly "The former was the focus in what you were saying" when you state "I am not sure if it is just drawing attention to some interesting, but often overlooked points" - if you don't understand the usage of referring to the former or the latter, then it's really about you not understanding basics in English and that's a larger problem that can be addressed elsewhere. As said before, I am not going to repeat the issue - especially when one already stated the matter in the OP:

Gxg (G²) said:
Orbit as a concept (when seeing how the orbit of differing celestial bodies differ from one another) can be a bit intriguing when seeing how things revolve relative to the rest of how our solar system operates......the world God made is truly amazing.

The helical model - our Galaxy is a vortex

Mind-blown considering the way our galaxy is truly a vortex in many ways - whether that be with the Sun, planets or (as previously discussed with Pluto) dwarf planets.... and thankful for all of the folks who are called by God to work in the world of astronomy or planetary science.

Again, it's not terribly difficult to address that dynamic as that was the focus of the thread.

I appreciate the difficulties of working in a foreign language - it is a challenge I have rarely met. I am not asking you to repeat the point, I am asking you to restate the point in different words.

I presume you are posting here to interest readers in your thought. I doubt I am the only reader who has difficulty understanding what you are aiming at. It would be in your interests as well as that of readers for you to have another go at presenting your case.

Once again, I doubt you are unable to read - so when it comes to dealing with the issue, it is hoped there will be not any attempt at being obtuse on the issue...or slowness to address what was already stated clearly in the OP. Foreign language is not an issue, although the ability to comprehend can be impacted when there's unwillingness to understand.

Ophiolite said:
From rereading some of the thread, in particular your post #16, it seems you feel the picture of our "true" motion through the galaxy has been insufficiently recognised. If that is your central point then I am unconvinced. The regular planar image of the solar system is wholly appropriate when we are thinking of the solar system and its constituents. There is nothing relating to the "true" motion that impacts upon the behavior of planets, satellites, etc.

You missed, if you read in context, where it was noted that a planar image of the solar system is not opposite of the solar system itself orbiting. The discussion was on differing models and their impact. And to be clear, as said before,
what I I noted very specifically was that Dr. Pallathadka Keshava Bhat has some good perspectives I think when it comes to a different way to think of our Solar System...as Sadhu references Dr. Pallathadka Keshava Bhat in his research, stating that it was Bhat that developed the new, Helical model seen in the video from the OP.

Dr. P. Keshava Bhat

If we wish to explore the influence of the position of the solar system within the galaxy, as it oscillates above and below the galactic plane it is sufficient to consider the system as a point. In short, the helical movement you describe, while real, is largely irrelevant.

The position of the solar system within the galaxy does not oscillate above and below the galactic plane - and the discussion was on helical movement in how it operates, it is not irrelevant when it comes to the issue of standard representations being addressed. This is what the author of the video in the OP noted when sharing in Solar System 2.0 & Science Friction | DjSadhu.com

As noted there:

- The angle with the Galaxy is 60 degrees! At 2:55 in the video I show how this could be the result of the upward angle of the Sun’s path.

- The sun’s path around the Galaxy itself is not helical! That may be. It’s surely not a straight line, we most certainly travel above and below the galactic plane, and I would not be surprised if there were more components to this pattern. Some say it is, and connect this to electromagnetism. But it is certainly not ‘mainstream’ to think this way.

- Our solar system does not have a tail! Well, according to NASA, space.com and DiscoverMagazine, it kind of does.

- It’s only a change in frame of reference! In a way, yes. But can it be “all wrong” and at the same timeonly a change of perspective? The confusing part is that some claim the helical model is “nothing new”, and other claim it’s “all wrong”. Go figure.

Our Solar System is a Vortex showed the helical patterns of the planets over time and connected it with other helical patterns found elsewhere.

- The planets are in the wrong order! Yes, I totally screwed up two orbits right before rendering the video. Out of millions of viewers maybe 50 noticed, but they’re right. But, this should not make you not see the point.

- It’s a helix, not a vortex! Maybe, but you get the point, right? Also this should not make you not see the point.

- The sun is not like a comet! Well, it kind of is, actually. Even NASA used the term “like a comet“.

- The heliocentric model is not “wrong”! I agree that to a certain degree it is a matter of “frame of reference”, but I am still of the opinion that gives a “wrong” impression, or “incomplete” for that matter. I’m willing to take it down a notch and say there’s more to reality than the heliocentric dinner-plate diagrams. Fair enough?

- The sun does not lead the planets! In this case, you comment on the wrong video. It’s the other video that demonstrates the cone shaped model. After reading the Plait article a lot of folks rushed to comment what they just read (about 24 times “all wrong”), not even noticing that in this video the planets are nicely lined up.

- The angle with the Galaxy is 60 degrees, not 90! There is no galaxy in this video, so what angle? Maybe the angle relative to the travel direction, but more on that later. Again, reading an article, rushing, blabla, and not even looking closely.

...
Out of all these wacky ideas in the first two videos there’s only one that’s most important to me. No, it’s not whether the solar system’s path is a wobble or a helix. No, it’s not whether the sun ‘leads’ the planets or not. No, it’s not the ‘pictures of leaves’. As this guy Ché Pasa understood right away, it’s the impressionthat the standard diagram gives.

It is how we see the solar system in our mind’s eye.

For me, the difference between a stationary looking dinner plate model and this dynamic, spiraling model was too huge to ignore. If you ask anyone what they see when they think of the solar system, they will probably describe something like this:

Obviously, I think there’s much more to it than that. Better yet, I think the helical model is quite provable. So, I decided to make another video demonstrating this helical pattern, but this time without the ‘wacky claims’. Just to get the point across: we’re moving, folks! I decided to dial it down a notch, leave out all the debatable details, no furious claims, no stepping on toes, no ‘pictures of leaves’, just the helical model. And make it art.

Here is Solar System 2.0 – a ‘new’ way of looking at our solar system. Sure, the knowledge that we’re moving may have been out there somewhere… but not the image.

G..

C’mon, now don’t tell me this was exactly how you always imagined it was.

Did you notice that from 2:05 you can actually see BOTH models? I included this shot just to show how dramatic this ‘change of perspective’ can be. Here’s the heliocentric model put into a helical frame of reference:

Although this is kind of “my own interpretation” of the 60 degree angle (no, not again!) it could work. But even if you disagree, this should not make you not see the point.

Also, did you notice there were no ‘wacky claims’ and no ‘pictures of leaves’? Don’t get me wrong here, I still believe it’s all connected, still read David Icke, still believe other woowoo stuff – it’s just not in this video. So what I would like is to see this video to be judged by its contents, and not to be debunked because the author ‘has David Icke on his site’.

“Peer review #01″

I recently had an email conversation with Rhys Taylor, an astrophysicist who also wrote an article about the first video. He’s seems like quite a nice guy with a great sense of humor. And he actually managed to see past the wacky stuff and notice something of a point. He also made his own version, and pointed out that there were similarities:

He explained to me how it all had worked from ‘their’ perspective, and why everyone reacted the way they did.

“I don’t think it’s fair to say that discrediting the other stuff on your website was not relevant. You made quite an explicit link between the motion of the planets and DNA and other organic structures. In effect, you claimed that your alternative source model provides evidence for a pseudo-scientific idea about the Fibonacci sequence. That was never going to go down well“.
But he also wrote: “I did, of course, get extremely annoyed by the promotion of this nonsensical alternative [cone shaped] model, but I wanted to make it absolutely clear that this helical-path business is perfectly correct.”

Sure, and I explained to him how it all had worked from my perspective, and why I made this new video. He blogged about this conversation here.

Here are some selective quotes from our conversation:

Rhys: “First, you presented the idea of helical paths as though it were some revolutionary new model. You could have very easily checked with more or less any astronomer who would have told you that we already know this is the case. True, a shiny animation did not exist to show it, but that, as I said, that doesn’t mean it wasn’t known. That doesn’t mean the video wasn’t worthwhile either, only that it should have been expressed differently. […] I do think Plait was right to call you out – even if he missed a pretty big point that the motion of the Solar System is rarely illustrated. Most of the problems with the original could, and should, have been easily prevented. It’s still a very nice rendering of the motion of the Solar System, but in context it was saying, “I’m an unqualified DJ who’s overturned all of astronomy“.”

Me: “The point is how people ‘see’ the solar system. Although the helical paths may have been known to astronomers and astrophysicists (and part of the public), what people ‘see’ when they think about the solar system is in my opinion incomplete. I doubt even astronomers see the solar system like the dynamic helical system as shown in my video, even though they may have all the facts that support it. I’m really hoping this “Solar System 2.0″ concept is getting the point across without shooting the idea in the foot again. […] Since I personally experienced that “aha moment” when I first found out the diagrams I had been watching all my life told only half the story, I’m willing to be that “nutter” as long as this becomes common knowledge.”

Me: “And how come, even though the standard model is ‘correct’ and ‘complete’… you had to come up with a completely new animation to show the old model is okay? Because there was no such video… and that’s what I find annoying. “Science” quickly jumps onto the “it’s all wrong” bandwagon… and then you have to go and tinker to personally make the first “correct” version (oh the angle is a bit different) The complete model should have been out there all along! Noo, let’s debunk DjSadhu, and then make the correct version - for the first time!”

Rhys: “Well, as I wrote in the article : ” What honestly surprises me is that this is so incredibly popular on the internet. If you weren’t aware that the Sun orbits the center of the galaxy – which, since the planets orbit it, necessitates that they trace out helical paths – then the education system has seriously failed. I have been accused of sounding jealous on this point, but unfortunately for me my statement is absolutely true. Honestly, it was so obvious to me that the planets trace out helical paths that I’m still amazed people find this such a revelation. Any object moving in a circular path around a moving center MUST trace out a helix. I find this so obvious I really don’t get why it needs to be stated, let alone visualised. But apparently I’m wrong, and it does. That’s why people like me and Plait are going to get pretty riled if you (intentionally or otherwise) claim that there’s something wrong with the heliocentric model – there isn’t, it’s purely a choice of reference frame.[…] The fact that the Sun and the Solar System orbit the galactic center ought to be considered as ordinary as the Earth going round the Sun. Your latest video has my full support. You’re clearly correct that large numbers of people aren’t aware that the Solar System moves through space – or if they are, they haven’t realised exactly what that means. Your video is a great way of demonstrating that.” (emphasis added)

Full article here.

Gxg (G²) · Apr 5, 2016

[serious] said:
You didn't address it, you copy and pasted an article about some variations in the direction of the interstellar wind.

And as said before, you didn't give anything close to an answer. You asked a red herring question on what stellar wind has to do with direction when you didn't even show - in academic reference or otherwise - that stellar wind was not related to the issue. If you are going to make a case, don't just throw out a phrase doing an argument of incredulity thinking you showed what others said in science. Other astrophysicists have spoken on the issue before so focus.....and to be clear, if you're going to attempt an ad-hominemn about "Well, that's a copy paste answer" (as if it is somehow less authentic when quoting another scientists speaking on the issue), then you're really not interested in answers.

Interstellar Wind Changed Direction Over 40 Years | NASA

Vestiges of the interstellar wind flowing into what's called the heliosphere -- the vast bubble filled by the sun's own constant flow of particles, the solar wind – is one of the ways scientists can observe what lies just outside of our own home, in the galactic cloud through which the solar system travels. The heliosphere is situated near the inside edge of an interstellar cloud and the two move past each other at a velocity of 50,000 miles per hour. This motion creates a wind of neutral interstellar atoms blowing past Earth, of which helium is the easiest to measure.

"Because the sun is moving though this cloud, interstellar atoms penetrate into the solar system," said Priscilla Frisch, an astrophysicist at the University of Chicago, Ill. and the lead author on the paper. "The charged particles in the interstellar wind don't do a good job of reaching the inner solar system, but many of the atoms in the wind are neutral. These can penetrate close to Earth and can be measured."

Frisch became interested in this subject when results in January 2012 from NASA's Interstellar Boundary Explorer, or IBEX, showed that the interstellar wind was entering the heliosphere from a slightly different direction than had been observed by NASA's Ulysses mission in the 1990s. Frisch and her colleagues set out to gather as much evidence from as many sources as they could to determine whether the newer instruments simply provided more accurate results, or whether the wind direction itself changed over the years.

I assume you were thinking the interstellar wind was a result of our motion through a stationary cloud, which it isn't. It's coming from roughly the direction of scorpius, roughly perpendicular to our direction of travel in the galaxy.

And as said before, I assume you know basics with not making something up without verification. Scientists have already noted interstellar wind results from our motion at points - and no, it is not coming from the direction of Scorpius at all points nor was it assumed all interstellar wind comes from moving through a stationary cloud - but again, that is your assumption.

If you want to say anything else, give some facts and references rather than assertion. VERIFY via astrophysics.

ok, if you understand that, you should understand also that in a few dozen million years the solar system will be moving through the galaxy edge on.

Seeing that other astrophysicists have disagreed on that issue, again, do you understand the Helic model at all? For your response already shows a bit of lacking in the basic understanding on the issue. As the author of the video noted directly in Solar System 2.0 & Science Friction | DjSadhu.com

:

- The angle with the Galaxy is 60 degrees! At 2:55 in the video I show how this could be the result of the upward angle of the Sun’s path.

- The sun’s path around the Galaxy itself is not helical! That may be. It’s surely not a straight line, we most certainly travel above and below the galactic plane, and I would not be surprised if there were more components to this pattern. Some say it is, and connect this to electromagnetism. But it is certainly not ‘mainstream’ to think this way.

- Our solar system does not have a tail! Well, according to NASA, space.com and DiscoverMagazine, it kind of does.

- It’s only a change in frame of reference! In a way, yes. But can it be “all wrong” and at the same timeonly a change of perspective? The confusing part is that some claim the helical model is “nothing new”, and other claim it’s “all wrong”. Go figure.

Our Solar System is a Vortex showed the helical patterns of the planets over time and connected it with other helical patterns found elsewhere.

- The planets are in the wrong order! Yes, I totally screwed up two orbits right before rendering the video. Out of millions of viewers maybe 50 noticed, but they’re right. But, this should not make you not see the point.

- It’s a helix, not a vortex! Maybe, but you get the point, right? Also this should not make you not see the point.

- The sun is not like a comet! Well, it kind of is, actually. Even NASA used the term “like a comet“.

- The heliocentric model is not “wrong”! I agree that to a certain degree it is a matter of “frame of reference”, but I am still of the opinion that gives a “wrong” impression, or “incomplete” for that matter. I’m willing to take it down a notch and say there’s more to reality than the heliocentric dinner-plate diagrams. Fair enough?

- The sun does not lead the planets! In this case, you comment on the wrong video. It’s the other video that demonstrates the cone shaped model. After reading the Plait article a lot of folks rushed to comment what they just read (about 24 times “all wrong”), not even noticing that in this video the planets are nicely lined up.

- The angle with the Galaxy is 60 degrees, not 90! There is no galaxy in this video, so what angle? Maybe the angle relative to the travel direction, but more on that later. Again, reading an article, rushing, blabla, and not even looking closely.

...
Out of all these wacky ideas in the first two videos there’s only one that’s most important to me. No, it’s not whether the solar system’s path is a wobble or a helix. No, it’s not whether the sun ‘leads’ the planets or not. No, it’s not the ‘pictures of leaves’. As this guy Ché Pasa understood right away, it’s the impressionthat the standard diagram gives.

It is how we see the solar system in our mind’s eye.

For me, the difference between a stationary looking dinner plate model and this dynamic, spiraling model was too huge to ignore. If you ask anyone what they see when they think of the solar system, they will probably describe something like this:

Obviously, I think there’s much more to it than that. Better yet, I think the helical model is quite provable. So, I decided to make another video demonstrating this helical pattern, but this time without the ‘wacky claims’. Just to get the point across: we’re moving, folks! I decided to dial it down a notch, leave out all the debatable details, no furious claims, no stepping on toes, no ‘pictures of leaves’, just the helical model. And make it art.

Here is Solar System 2.0 – a ‘new’ way of looking at our solar system. Sure, the knowledge that we’re moving may have been out there somewhere… but not the image.

G..

C’mon, now don’t tell me this was exactly how you always imagined it was.

Did you notice that from 2:05 you can actually see BOTH models? I included this shot just to show how dramatic this ‘change of perspective’ can be. Here’s the heliocentric model put into a helical frame of reference:

Although this is kind of “my own interpretation” of the 60 degree angle (no, not again!) it could work. But even if you disagree, this should not make you not see the point.

Also, did you notice there were no ‘wacky claims’ and no ‘pictures of leaves’? Don’t get me wrong here, I still believe it’s all connected, still read David Icke, still believe other woowoo stuff – it’s just not in this video. So what I would like is to see this video to be judged by its contents, and not to be debunked because the author ‘has David Icke on his site’.

“Peer review #01″

I recently had an email conversation with Rhys Taylor, an astrophysicist who also wrote an article about the first video. He’s seems like quite a nice guy with a great sense of humor. And he actually managed to see past the wacky stuff and notice something of a point. He also made his own version, and pointed out that there were similarities:

He explained to me how it all had worked from ‘their’ perspective, and why everyone reacted the way they did.

“I don’t think it’s fair to say that discrediting the other stuff on your website was not relevant. You made quite an explicit link between the motion of the planets and DNA and other organic structures. In effect, you claimed that your alternative source model provides evidence for a pseudo-scientific idea about the Fibonacci sequence. That was never going to go down well“.
But he also wrote: “I did, of course, get extremely annoyed by the promotion of this nonsensical alternative [cone shaped] model, but I wanted to make it absolutely clear that this helical-path business is perfectly correct.”

Sure, and I explained to him how it all had worked from my perspective, and why I made this new video. He blogged about this conversation here.

Here are some selective quotes from our conversation:

Rhys: “First, you presented the idea of helical paths as though it were some revolutionary new model. You could have very easily checked with more or less any astronomer who would have told you that we already know this is the case. True, a shiny animation did not exist to show it, but that, as I said, that doesn’t mean it wasn’t known. That doesn’t mean the video wasn’t worthwhile either, only that it should have been expressed differently. […] I do think Plait was right to call you out – even if he missed a pretty big point that the motion of the Solar System is rarely illustrated. Most of the problems with the original could, and should, have been easily prevented. It’s still a very nice rendering of the motion of the Solar System, but in context it was saying, “I’m an unqualified DJ who’s overturned all of astronomy“.”

Me: “The point is how people ‘see’ the solar system. Although the helical paths may have been known to astronomers and astrophysicists (and part of the public), what people ‘see’ when they think about the solar system is in my opinion incomplete. I doubt even astronomers see the solar system like the dynamic helical system as shown in my video, even though they may have all the facts that support it. I’m really hoping this “Solar System 2.0″ concept is getting the point across without shooting the idea in the foot again. […] Since I personally experienced that “aha moment” when I first found out the diagrams I had been watching all my life told only half the story, I’m willing to be that “nutter” as long as this becomes common knowledge.”

Me: “And how come, even though the standard model is ‘correct’ and ‘complete’… you had to come up with a completely new animation to show the old model is okay? Because there was no such video… and that’s what I find annoying. “Science” quickly jumps onto the “it’s all wrong” bandwagon… and then you have to go and tinker to personally make the first “correct” version (oh the angle is a bit different) The complete model should have been out there all along! Noo, let’s debunk DjSadhu, and then make the correct version - for the first time!”

Rhys: “Well, as I wrote in the article : ” What honestly surprises me is that this is so incredibly popular on the internet. If you weren’t aware that the Sun orbits the center of the galaxy – which, since the planets orbit it, necessitates that they trace out helical paths – then the education system has seriously failed. I have been accused of sounding jealous on this point, but unfortunately for me my statement is absolutely true. Honestly, it was so obvious to me that the planets trace out helical paths that I’m still amazed people find this such a revelation. Any object moving in a circular path around a moving center MUST trace out a helix. I find this so obvious I really don’t get why it needs to be stated, let alone visualised. But apparently I’m wrong, and it does. That’s why people like me and Plait are going to get pretty riled if you (intentionally or otherwise) claim that there’s something wrong with the heliocentric model – there isn’t, it’s purely a choice of reference frame.[…] The fact that the Sun and the Solar System orbit the galactic center ought to be considered as ordinary as the Earth going round the Sun. Your latest video has my full support. You’re clearly correct that large numbers of people aren’t aware that the Solar System moves through space – or if they are, they haven’t realised exactly what that means. Your video is a great way of demonstrating that.” (emphasis added)

Full article here.

Our Galaxy is a Vortex: Seeing How our Solar System Rotates in multiple levels...

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Contributor

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA

Well-Known Member

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Well-Known Member

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency